Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I just find the whole thing funny. Both sides are acting like absolute morons in this situation. It's fine to have freedom of speech on both sides, but those against Chick Fil A are acting just as hateful and spiteful as they are accusing Chick Fil A of.. Wishing death upon and slamming christians for their beliefs are just as bad as them treating gays badly, but I am seeing it quite a bit. So basically in summary, those against Chick Fil A are acting like total hypocrites, slamming the CEO for his comments yet acting even more hateful towards him and claiming "freedom of speech", but doesn't it work both ways?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Wishing death upon and slamming christians for their beliefs are just as bad as them treating gays badly, but I am seeing it quite a bit.<< Sorry I misspoke, Chick Fil A has never been accused of anti homesexual conduct, they are being boycotted because their CEO made his personal beliefs public. Boycotting is one thing, but one random search on the Internet will turn up more hate towards the CEO and the company then you could believe... I am the furthest thing from a Christian than you can be, and even I support Chick Fil A because I see them being victims of "reverse bullying"
Originally Posted By dshyates Chick fil a financially suports the Family Research Council with their profits. The Family Research Council openly advocates the imprisoning of homosexuals. Since May of this year, six American Christian Pastors and one duly elected GOP Lawmaker have publicly advocated that the Government build concentration camp to exterminate homosexuals. The sheer number of bigots that showed up yesterday in support of this agenda should scare the crap out of any sane individual. “I have been attacked because of my handling of the Jewish question. The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc., because it recognized the Jews for what they were. In the epoch of liberalism the danger was no longer recognized. I am moving back toward the time in which a fifteen-hundred-year-long tradition was implemented. I do not set race over religion, but I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the Church, and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.” - Adolf Hitler Sound familiar?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "but if we looked at the 'belief set' of most CEO's I think we'd be avoiding a lot of places for a lot of different reasons..." But it's not just about his beliefs. It's his tremendous financial support for groups such as the FRC, recognized by the SPLC and others as a hate group. If they funneled millions of dollars to a more obvious hate group like the KKK, I'm assuming you'd understand the boycott? The principle is the same. "but those against Chick Fil A are acting just as hateful and spiteful as they are accusing Chick Fil A of.." By pointing out their actions and choosing to eat elsewhere? Because despite some extreme reactions you can find on the Internet, that's all 99% of the people opposed to CFA are doing.
Originally Posted By 182 Dshyates in post 143 are you honestly trying to compare Dan Cathy to Hitler ???? That is digusting of you.
Originally Posted By dshyates Yes, Dan Cathy is financially supporting Hate Groups that are advocating imprisoning homosexuals. Did you read the Hitler quote? That is the same rhetoric Cathy is using. So yes. I am directly comparing Cathy's hate to Hitler's.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Vbdad55, you have a good point. I'm sure that's why many CEO's keep their mouths shut. It's the blatant statements made by Dan Kathy that made people so upset. I think people are just reacting to that. I'm sure if we found out what each CEO of any company we do business with believes, we wouldn't be able to buy anything... What makes me mad is the "free speech" thing that is being twisted, and also all of the pictures from friends on Facebook standing in lines at Chik-Fil-A's around the country yesterday. They all had gleeful expressions on their faces, basically saying to me "F*** you!". I should just defriend them all.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Weren't the right wing wackos all saying that they were going to boycott Oreos a couple of weeks ago?
Originally Posted By dshyates When Christians boycott something it is expressing their 1st amendment rights. When the left boycotts something it is infringing on the Christians 1st amendment rights. It is ALL about them. Don'tcha know.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "When Christians boycott something it is expressing their 1st amendment rights. When the left boycotts something it is infringing on the Christians 1st amendment rights. It is ALL about them. Don'tcha know." Yeah, my sister just posted on Facebook saying basically that. She's on the Christian Chik-Fil-A side, and I'm gay...so, yeah. She was whining about "our side" trampling on free speech. She didn't even acknowledge that she is doing the same thing.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 When Christians boycott something it is expressing their 1st amendment rights. When the left boycotts something it is infringing on the Christians 1st amendment rights. It is ALL about them. Don'tcha know.<< Nobody said anything of the sort, both sides are free to express their first amendment rights, but the people who are against Chick Fil A are much more hateful than Chick Fil A, it just makes me laugh. I've just realized that the gay community isn't about equal rights, they want special rights. They want the ability to criticize others for their comments yet want to be immune from any such criticism. And if you don't believe me about special treatment, let's go back to 2 weeks ago before a gay rights march. It has been the military's policy for at least the last 30 years to not allow any political events while in uniform, so as not to have it be implied the military supports the political organization. A few years ago a Soldier was in uniform during a McCain speech and he was actually disciplined for it as it violated Army policy. Well the gay rights march was granted and received an exception to allow gay service members to participate in uniform... and when people criticized this, they were called biased, homophobic and worse, when all we want is EQUAL treatment. They should be able to attend, but OUT of uniform, not in uniform. Regardless of what people say, the gay rights movement is a political organization as they contribute quite heavily to democratic campaigns, so the laws should apply there. Taking it back to Chick Fil A, those vocal against Chick Fil A are using their first amendment rights which is fine, but they are using their clout to try and prevent Chick Fil A's from being built in certain areas, which crosses the line IMO from 1st amendment rights to blatant harassment...
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Taking it back to Chick Fil A, those vocal against Chick Fil A are using their first amendment rights which is fine, but they are using their clout to try and prevent Chick Fil A's from being built in certain areas, which crosses the line IMO from 1st amendment rights to blatant harassment...<< Chick-fil-a is using its money to support laws to try and prevent two people who love each other from marrying. THAT is blatant harassment. >>I've just realized that the gay community isn't about equal rights, they want special rights. They want the ability to criticize others for their comments yet want to be immune from any such criticism.<< Nonsense. >>And if you don't believe me about special treatment, let's go back to 2 weeks ago before a gay rights march. It has been the military's policy for at least the last 30 years to not allow any political events while in uniform, so as not to have it be implied the military supports the political organization.<< I have seen people in uniform at every kind of parade there is, based on ethnicity, heritage, patriotism, etc. Gay soldiers wanted to take part in a parade celebrating who they are. That is not a "special" right.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>They should be able to attend, but OUT of uniform, not in uniform. << Should they be allowed to wear their uniforms in a Christmas parade, William?
Originally Posted By dshyates "but the people who are against Chick Fil A are much more hateful than Chick Fil A" More hateful than giving millions of dollars to groups that advocate imprisoning homosexuals? That's pretty hateful in my book. But I do agree that Gov't officials who ACTUALLY make political moves to prevent legal commerce is unconstitutional. The Mayor of Boston sent a letter to CFA saying that they aren't welcome, but have made no moves to restrict them from opening stores there. This is not unconstitutional. Rahm Emmanuel said that they were thinking about rezoning to prevent CFA from being to open up there. But as of yet they also have not made any type of move to prevent CFA from going into Chicago. So as of yet, NONE of CFA's guaranteed Constitutional rights have been infringed upon. Now if either of those guys actually do try and prevent CFA from opeinng then they have crossed the line into unconstitutionality.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Chick-fil-a is using its money to support laws to try and prevent two people who love each other from marrying. THAT is blatant harassment.>> It maybe harassment, but there's nothing saying they can't contribute to those laws.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Of course they can. But by doing so, they pay a potential P.R. price. Free speech is a two-way street.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<They want the ability to criticize others for their comments yet want to be immune from any such criticism.>> Also included, Republicans, Democrats, Christians, Atheists, Tea Party members, unions, etc.
Originally Posted By 182 I think the right to boycott is American and I have no problem with that. The people will speak with the power of the Dollar
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <but the people who are against Chick Fil A are much more hateful than Chick Fil A, it just makes me laugh.> More hateful? How? Giving millions of dollars to organizations that hate chicken sandwiches? I didn't realize anyone had done so. <I've just realized that the gay community isn't about equal rights, they want special rights.> William, you disappoint me. I had thought you better than that old hoary talking point, nicely disproved by Kar2oonman. <They want the ability to criticize others for their comments yet want to be immune from any such criticism.< Gotta call horsefoofie on that one too. You're criticizing right now, and that's fine. Let me ask you just flat out: let's say Chick-Fil-A contributed millions of dollars not to Focus on the Family or Exodus but to the KKK or the Aryan Nations. He would have every right to do so. But would you understand why people would be upset? I would hope so. And would you continue to patronize them? I would hope not. And that's the crux of this. Not what he said - he has the right to his opinion, misguided as it is. But contributing millions to hate groups is another thing entirely. If you wouldn't patronize and would call out a business that funded the Klan, I would hope you would do the same for one that funds anti-gay hate groups, but that of course is your decision.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It has been the military's policy for at least the last 30 years to not allow any political events while in uniform, so as not to have it be implied the military supports the political organization.<< Landing on the flight deck of a carrier wearing a flight suit, however, isn't political theater at all.
